In the last piece I went over a variety of ways in which to utilize social TV in to advertise and embrace new potential commercialization solutions for this growing landscape. What strikes me as the most compelling at current is theability to tie in all screens and create ad formats that extend beyond the reach of any individual elements. Like all great potentiation equations 1+1 can, and should, equal three. Especially when it comes to advertising. Advertisements that present a big screen emotive placement, and then sync an ad in real time on the addressable/interactive second screen is fantastically exciting and complex. (Even more exciting is never.no’s new Multiscreen ad product seen here.. “Sync” )

There is utmost potential to monetize synchronized second screen ad placements, but in current iterations there are challenges that need to be overcome. These challenges present a lot of barriers to brands, agencies and broadcasters. The fact of the matter is that viewers typically do not want to view, or for that matter, interact with an ad. I’ve possibly upset some members of the crowd here, but it’s true. That said, viewers do want to watch and interact with experiences that bring them intrinsic value. How we define value whether it’s something derived for entertainment, for the perception of control over content, or for needed information is cursory to the main point. This is why it is so important that before we just embrace multiscreen ad spots, we do so in ways that create consumer value, transcend the dull and dreary, and capture the minds and hearts of viewers. To do so we need to overcome the barriers

The Barriers:

Problem #1 Mortgage crisis:  Given the nature of human attention and focus, there is a good chance that having a synced dual ad placement can shift attentionfrom one ad format (or screen) to the other. Sure the second screen presents a great ad and it has captivated my viewer, but what about the potential of that highly emotive experience occurring on the big screen that my viewer forgot about? The one that has the ability to create intense recall,emotional responses and engagement? On the other hand, what happens if we have a great second screen interaction planned, but the first screen is more compelling? We have then lost the second screen element.

Any way we slice it, our audience’s attention can be mortgaged from one screen to the other. We never want this to happen. We never want to replace one ad spot for another. It’s ad waste and budget waste.

Problem #2- Losing viewers down the internet rabbit hole- If we lose the viewer’s attention, engagement elements will occur outside of the viewer’s first screen experience. We all know that one digital interaction can lend itself to getting lost in other Internet elements. I may have started at a micro site only to be led deeper into something unrelated on my second screen. Not a good thing for programming or further ads. I don’t want my watcher lost.

Solution: What we need to do is create ad formats that require dual screen attention and interactivity across both the TV and second screen in direct correlation with one another. We need calls to action that transcend simply displaying an ad on both screens, but also creates calls to action that elicits attention to both screens in order engage. We need engagement across dual screens.

We need to allow further interactivity and participative elements to close theloop on both screens. There is far more potential of a circular engagement,than the one-way activity of simply syncing an ad. We want to create interaction across both screens and have this interaction move in two ways:back and forth from each screen. This will prevent our viewer from no longer mortgaging one screen for the other, as well as keep our viewer fromgetting lost.

How to effectively sync ads:

1) Ad occurs on 1st screen followed by a perfectly timed, second screen sync.

2) Second Screen ad placement is directly interactive and addressable

3) Interactions or resulting data from the second screen can be tied back into the first screen in real time.

If we can engage this sort of methodology it means that we extend the life cycle of both the first and second screen placements while giving audiences a reason to stay tuned on both the emotive big screen and the addressable/interactive smaller screen. It also means that we have an engagement that calls for constant attention. Attention that can be brought right back into the programming. We are now cueing a social share that is based on deep engagement that can lead to further interaction; an engagement that can be seen directly, on both the big screen and the small one.

How do we do this? We allow the synced placement to have interactive elements- polling/voting/quizzing/gaming/ there are endless permutations. We proceed to bring forth the results of these interactions and their displayableelements from the second screen onto the first screen. Most intriguingly, we can allow ads and programming to have an interplay with one another. Advertising that is more directly integrated with programming means more interesting ad experiences and less skipping.

Stay tuned, we’ll soon delve deeper into Multiscreen interactive and synchronizable ads as well as some Connected TV Advertising chatter.

We will continue our deep dive into Social TV monetization and advertising in this 3rd segment (to find the first two check out the never.no blog and check out the never.no social TV platform while there…). I’ll chat on some directly monetizable elements that social TV can provide to content providers as well as advertising benefits for brands and agencies.  We hear the term Social TV and Social TV Advertising quite often, yet rarely do we brush upon breaking the term down into the various formats that are on offer. So lets begin with…

Naturally Social Advertising

By the very nature of socialization, advertising spots on television can very easily shift between paid and earned media in the ‘paid-earned-owned’ equation. Campaigns also become “multiscreen” placements quite simply without much further work on behalf of content creators/providers. This is the reason we see so many simple hashtags appearing on ad spots and the increase in social analytics coming into play for TV across the board. Social complements TV, and vice versa, whether it’s great programming or a great ad.

A great commercial placement has always had the ability to yield a social share. We’ve been spreading funny/interesting commercials for decades. The digital world lets us do this in real-time (rather than around the water cooler the next day), and with a larger audience as discussed in article one (Article 1) , this allows for social TV Advertising to flourish in some ways, butthese methods are the home turf of the creative house, brand or media agency. You want easy social TV advertising? Have great creative  and media planning. End point. The content creator or broadcaster don’t necessarily see any additional revenue from this iteration of social TV Advertising. It’s a natural implementation. Great creative = More social Ads.

That said, we could go far deeper than this. It’s just a matter of enabling a far more engaging experience across multiple screens and having all screens integrated. It’s a matter of taking true advantage of what new technologies and behaviors can offer us.

Socially Engineered/Enabled Campaigns:

Many recent campaigns have integrated social methodology to tie in the big screen with smaller screens, by asking for participation or action within Facebook, Twitter or other social media. Some exceptional examples of earned media have been enabled with results starting to showcase these methods as proven ways to increase an Ad/campaign yield.

A great example of the above is the latest innovative campaign from Mercedes. The campaign allows users to help shape the end of a series of commercials by interacting directly with Twitter. Quite cool. They are enabling a viewer to not just participate, but also feel that they are helping to shape, steer and control their media. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, control is very powerful and control of  TV advertising is a win-win for all concerned parties. Nearly as powerful here is the fact that by allowing interactive participation via twitter, each interaction is also organically spread via social. If a person wants to cast a vote via twitter, they are also spreading a brand message. Each and every time. To a potentially massive audience. From the brand perspective there is a myriad of diverse engagements to be created with exceptional success as we imagine the possibilities.

That said, at present these formats are still what I would consider to be quite basic strategies, merely  scratching the surface of future potential. We can still envisage far greater formats for engagement, interaction and, of course, monetization.

Brand Sponsorship of Interactive Elements: Polling/voting/gaming/social result based Ads

We can look into emerging  sponsorship Ad formats for both over the top content as well as linear, however I will save my OTT thoughts for another time. Integrating brand sponsorships- into newly found social and participative elements can be brought about incredibly simply and effectively across the board.

We have a plethora of new interactions that can be engaged with on the big screen as well as second screens- Voting/polling/social responses which allow viewer participation and then display the results graphically on-screen are directly monetizable and dynamic. A poll is launched, viewers interact and respond and the results can be displayed on the big screen in  nice big sponsored sections.

These graphical sections displaying interactive results have an endemic capability to dually serve as display Ad real estate.  The power behind this format is that it is an advertisement that occurs during the programming. It is integrated with programming elements and it is based on a viewer interaction. This means it is not skippable, and it occurs during the greatest levels of viewer attention. This format is also directly monetizable by a broadcaster and due to it’s interactive elements/nature , viewers have a direct call to action to view it, as opposed to  far more typical indirect sponsor placements.  There are also various permutations that smart creatives can come up with, based on the idea of sponsored polls/voting and having these elements play out in real time.  (We’ll have a specific article for these as well, not to worry).

Synchronized Multiscreen Ad Placements

I believe this is where the heart of TV advertising is heading. I also feel this is the most compelling future of TV ad placements. These formats have been getting some good exposure lately as they offer a dual screen experience in real time and offer an ad placement that can be found on not one, but two screens simultaneously.

A synced placement allows a very specific interaction to take place organically. An ad is launched on TV, and a second screen device syncs to it. We allow a viewer to see the ad; we then allow the ad to be pushed to the user’s second screen device. At this stage, the viewer can interact with the placement and be led to deeper experiences, transactions, or share any captivating elements.

When using a synchronized second screen, we capitalize on all screens, no matter which one is currently holding the viewer’s attention. This is compounded by the fact that with another screen displaying an advert, we create monetization elements. Consequently, content creators/providers are able to further monetize new and emerging digital assets.

That said there are numerous challenges (Screen mortgaging/fragmentation etc.)  that need to be overcome. How we actually create interactivity and engagement across the screens must be discussed. As current synced iterations leave a lot to be desired and are lacking in multiple elements.  For this reason, I will post a very quick followup to this post.

Tweet us @neverno to give your thoughts to any of these posts!

If you followed the last post (found at  never.no), you’ll remember that I said that there are many methods of monetizing Social TV. Some of these are direct….. which, keep waiting…I will REALLY delve into deep quite soon. That said, many elements are indirect, of which viewer engagement is of extreme importance.

While we spoke last time about how social share can drive eyeballs in real time, this doesn’t necessarily mean these eyeballs are staying with us, or for that matter, staying truly focused on our content or ads. This is why rather than chatting on engagement today, we will especially focus on re-engagement. We often mention initial engagement factors  solely when we chat on Social TV initiatives in their external forms (outside of programming). We need this externally oriented engagement to build viewership, visibility, loyalty and intrigue, but we need ongoing re-engagement to keep eyeballs for the length of our programming our ads and our calls to action.

When we talk about engagement we have to look at two very separate factions. The first is engagement with the program off hours and supplemental to direct content. We are seeing some exceptional campaigns to engage users and build show “brands” by creating digital assets that seek to engage watchers before or after they are watching. I.E. “We built this site to bring fans into the action.” We built this community on FB to allow fans to converse and discover related content” We built this asset to allow conversation between cast and watchers”  “We’re engaging in X form of Transmedia to keep watchers involved across platforms and in the real world.”

This is vastly powerful. But it’s easy to forget that the greatest levels of engagement must be found during the programming/ as part of the programming. This is where engagement must be broken down between in-program re-engagement as separate to external life cycle engagement. Real time in-program Re-engagement is the area seeing the least amount of resource dedicated towards it. It seems content is speaking for itself, not a bad thing, but no matter how great the content, today’s digital viewer seeks more.

First lets go into the dire warning factors as to why not just engagement, but re-engagement is becoming ever more important.

Choice: No matter how interesting off-show engagement elements might be and how involved we allow viewers to become with our show brands, in the actual moment of watching our viewers have a myriad of options of what to watch and for how long they watch, whether they’ve been drawn in by social share or not.  Outside of just an ever-increasing amount of “Channels”, we also have a wealth of on-demand as well as over the top content to fragment attention. As well as ever-greater increases of user generated content that takes place in both short or long form. This means that even if my user just joined an amazing community somehow built around a show, or got involved in an offline campaign or viewing as a social share – at the moment they decide to watch something, they have countless options of what that might be and for how long they watch before switching.

Attention shifting: Even while watching my programming, viewers have a million other elements they might be engaged with in their digital galaxies outside of that first engagement via social share. Are my watchers focused on 100% of my program, or is 50% going to other digital endeavors? Are they only really 20% focused, while the rest of their attention is going to online shopping, Facebook, online news? In most cases without proper usage, the second screen for all of its glory is driving user attention away from television programming.

Time-shifting: This is not new, but it means that my watcher has the freedom to watch when they want to watch. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but without a call to action to watch at a certain budgeted time frame, well…DVR’s get pretty filled up with a lot of programming- content that is not my programming and my programming has a much easier ability to get lost in the shuffle or budgeted for a later date that may never come. This also means that my program may not get the social share it deserves as the conversation isn’t occurring in real time either.

So while Social TV monetization step one might be to drive eyeballs, it‘s not enough. While incredible Social TV campaigns seek to drive these eyeballs, we need direct, in the moment and throughout the programming methods to keep eyeballs glued. Again, an everlasting cycle of re-engagement that moves past the initial social share.

How can we not just engage, but Re-engage?

1. Our Second Screens must be not just be correlated to programming, but in direct with conjunction with it. Check-ins are great. Related topical information found on second screen apps are great. (If it doesn’t, then lead the viewer to a plethora of other topics) Secondary/extra and “digital only” content is especially great. But this doesn’t always create the deep engagement needed to keep viewers glued over and over again in the moment and prevent attention fragmentation.

Our second screen has the ability to directly involve the viewer with what they are watching. Choose your own adventure type formats, where direct audience participation influences what is being watched in real time. Again, polls, votes, questions, games and viewer choice formats mean that our viewers must be present to take part. They must be paying attention to our 2nd screen assets to participate and paying attention to our first screen to see the results of their participation. Their attention in other words must be in a constant closed loop with our content and to do that, they need continued calls to action to keep involved. These need not all be lean forward by any means, but lean back with simple functionalities and creative calls to action.

2. Our greatest efforts on social media community building must also take place during the exact time of the programming. We want to engineer new and original digital water cooler conversation during the airing of a program. Social share, plus before and after social endeavors/assets can get the viewer to where we want them to be, but making them stay there is the holy grail. Conversation spurring initiatives that take place during the programming means our viewers won’t miss out on the social aspect taking place during the show as they are consistently engaged directly during airtime. They are not left out. Nobody wants to be left out. Any way we can engage social TV elements to spur conversation in general to drive viewership is fantastic. Engineering conversation however to timely elements occurring during the show, means that we bypass time shifting. We bypass other content they could be flipping over to and we bypass the ability for them to be absorbed in other digital endeavors.

3. We need to create Television experiences. I have said this many times before. In order to keep up with up modern consumer behavior our television watching has to have an element of “I need to watch in order to partake”. Not an “I’ll watch when I decide to” experience, but an effect like crowd sourced theater. If you want to take part in the full experience, you have to be involved in the full experience. You cannot gain this exceptional experience without being at it for the full event, at the exact time and without full attention. So, in order to engage, re-engage and drive new revenue, we must drive new experiences. These experiences must have strong calls to action before, during and after the programming and all must be engineered to be an experience that takes place across an entire life cycle. When we can do this, when we can build social communities and intrigue before a program, re-engage an audience after an initial social share throughout the program, and than allow that audience to gain even more value once the program is over…well…We can monetize Social TV in ways that have never before been seen. We can boost our revenue over all those gaining only 50% of mindshare, to 100% full engaged, re-engaged and ready to do it all over again watchers.

So lets complicate our very simple formula we set forth last time: (I promise, this will be the last equation)

Original: Social interactions=Greater Visibility= Greater eyeballs= Greater revenue

New Version: Social interactions=Greater visibility= Greater eyeballs Multiplied by In-program re-engagement across devices= Far greater and long term revenue

As usual let us know your thoughts at @neverno or check out the site at www.never.no

If there is any question that seems to be playing on repeat these days, it’s “how do we monetize Social TV?” It is pondered and asked regardless of platforms and mediums, whether we are talking about companion apps, traditional 2nd screens or connected TV. The bottom line is that when we talk about digital socialization around television, there is a gap of information as to how we can commercialize emerging TV formats.

I personally hear many individuals extolling the benefits of deeper engagement, audience loyalty, brand building and community building in answer to this question. However, after these are mentioned, there is often a glazed over look that accompanies the faces of those in the TV and advertising industries. The above benefits are by no means trivial. They are crucial in every way, shape and form to our industry’s future and I will certainly do them some justice moving forward, by diving in deep and discussing their own complexities….but not just yet.

This article is going to be a multi-part series, and will serve as a primer to a more (spoiler alert) comprehensive white-paper that never.no will be releasing on the subject of emerging television monetization. In the next part, I will go over my favorite subject- advertising integrations and what sorts of new or modified revenue streams we can dream up when dissecting the social TV space and connected viewers. For now however, I wanted to start incredibly slow and with a topic very few seem to ever bring up. What I like to call monetization via Social share.

Social Share Basics:

The basis of the idea is that when we allow people to digitally socialize around television it has an effect of greatly increasing the number of watchers. This falls outside of the idea of basic community building and into the area of directly influencing viewership numbers. This effect can occur in leaps and bounds as there is an instantaneous marketing interaction that happens the moment viewers begin to socialize around their programming. As chatter and conversation happen, one or many individuals allow their watching to become visible and communicated on a mass scale, and produce calls to action to tune in to exactly what they are watching in the moment.

Lets take an example of how social share works in the brick and mortar world so we can better tie it in to the world of television, social media and convergence. This is a well-documented area that is simple to understand and see in action. My sister is a shopping fanatic. A few weeks ago I was on my way to meet her for lunch and an hour or so before, I received a mass text that she had sent to numerous friends. “Amazing secret sale at Nordstroms, come check it out!” I, having low interest, kept driving and eventually met her at a restaurant near the mall. What was supposed to be me and her at lunch had then turned into her and a few of her friends who had met her at Nordstroms, all of whom had bags and bags of newly bought sale items.

Her text message served as a call to action to her friends of something worthy of attention and possible action. Based on this social share, Nordstroms received far more sales than they would have if she had never sent that text. This is a very basic word of mouth effect that has been documented time and time again. Real time sharing of information often creates real world monetization.

Empowering this effect however with modern social media, greatly extends the reach of any form of communication. If my sister had sent out that text as a tweet instead, there is a good chance that her friends would have still seen it, but it would also have had the chance to be seen by anybody else in the twittersphere. A previously untapped audience of others who might also have been interested in a “secret” sale, allowing Nordstroms to receive a massive earned social share that drove actual sales in the moment.

In TV, we sell eyeballs. Whether we are selling subscriptions or advertising, more eyeballs equals more monetary potential. When one individual tweets what they are watching, or an element that came up in the show, the interaction instantly creates online visibility and a call to attention to watch. “My friend/colleague/neighbor/ is watching this- perhaps I should be too.”  “They are talking about Italy on my favorite travel show, I am going to Italy in May, I should check it out”. Even social elements that may seem unrelated to the programming may have some form of symbolism to a potential watcher. It’s water cooler chatter that can be instantly acted upon, the moment the program is aired. More tweets/posts about a show occurring in real time means more watchers becoming aware of the show. More watchers equals more eyeballs and eyeballs, as discussed, are revenue. We drive folks tuned into their digital media straight to a correlated television experience.

If we can start to create more calls to action to chat, and easier methodologies to enable this form of participation, we create thousands, or even millions of word of mouth marketers in real time. More chatter equates to more visibility, which begets…you guessed it even more chatter, creating an eventual domino effect to bring in greater viewership. This is one of the greatest powers of Social TV. Audience driving. With the wealth of potential programming for viewers to watch however, we need strategies to create the highest levels of socialization and separate from the rest of the pack.

Elements that are needed to socially drive audiences: 

A reason to chat about programming: This may be something content related, promotion related, or strictly topical. Whatever the reason, content creators can bring forth elements that drive social conversation. New formats of onscreen interaction can also create a stronger call to action. Launching tweets on air for example, gives watchers the ability to potentially communicate across mass mediums- digital and broadcast. The possibility of seeing their own commentary launched live or even as part of the programming is an exceptional method to reward chatter.

An ability to easily interact via social media. This is part of the power of the 2nd Screen or connected TV. We can allow watchers to communicate via social media traditionally or with correlated companion applications that allow a more seamless transition to conversation. Social Media integrated directly in with the programming and correlated to programming elements.

Interactive Differentiation: The ability to conceptualize new interactive elements provides the greatest potential for differentiation. By allowing audiences to vote, participate in polls and questions, engage in live promotions and converse in new ways, allows us tocreate items that can be directly visible across social media and directly chatted about. We create complex television engagements that do more than just drive engagement; they also drive greater visibility and program marketing.

Social interactions=Greater Visibility= Greater eyeballs= Greater revenue.

A simple formula which we will delve into in greater levels on the next post. Until then, tweet us @neverno and let us know your thoughts.

At never.no (www.never.no) we’re looking into the emerging TV landscape holistically with respect to technology, media and psychology. It’s been brought to the TV industry’s attention that social media coupled with television watching increases viewer attention and engagement. Understanding why this is however, can allow those in the TV business to greatly take  further advantage of these consumer behaviors. In what could  be hundreds of psychological correlations explored, I will simply highlight two I’d love to focus on, in order to further define and expand upon the notion that social interaction coupled with Television creates immensely  enhanced audience engagement and retention.

Focused yet divided Attention: One reason multi-screen attention can create engagement:

In a study  conducted by Muller in 2003, findings proved that individuals can divide their attention between two compelling sources of visual  focus. Attention will shift between these two sources within  half a second and the brain is still allowed enough time to be cognizant and involved with both. When this attention is divided by these two however, many other elements and stimuli that one might typically focus upon, no longer become relevant or even brought into consciousness. The person in the other room, that meatball sandwich in the fridge, the birds chirping outside, whatever it might be is easily ignored. So when we engage television watchers, with not just programming on one screen, but also a correlated  visual task on another, whether it’s a synchronized companion application or a social call to action, we allow those viewers to have their attention span divided into the same core focus. This forced selective attention on two different yet correlated items creates a far greater level of engagement without distraction. Everything else without an incredibly compelling call to action. I.E. The pizza guy ringing the doorbell, or a significant other yelling to clean the dishes gets totally tuned out. (See, psychology can be fun.)

Lesson learned: By activating a synchronized companion to TV whether it’s participatory or social, we allow viewers to tune out many other potentially distracting elements around them.  We create true engagement. The permutations of what we can do with this knowledge to further activate engagement and interaction are nearly endless.

Group TV engagement begets larger groups and furthers audience retention and interaction

How we act as a group and how we act as individuals are two very separate items that have been the focus of copious behavioral research. One basic component of Social Identity Theory tells us that when we we are in group setting, we often follow, copy or mimic the behaviors of other group members. In the twitter/social media/TV sphere, this means that people who watch what we are watching may become  part of our perceived group, and as such, we often follow their lead on interaction. We may even mimic their thoughts and actions.

This concept is greatly tied in to the concept social proof, which for all terms and purposes, means that when making decisions, whether it’s what to watch, or how engaged we become, we rely on our social circles. We do this in order to resolve personal insecurities. The point here is that by creating large group behaviors, by creating social groups offline or online, we further the potential for new watchers to come onboard or old watchers to become more engaged. When we create groups around TV programming, we create followers and participators, who beget more followers and participators. Something all in the TV biz should be striving for.

Perhaps you may be  thinking that a few tweets for instance are too small an event to influence social behavior.  A study by Tajfel  (Tajfel et al., 1971)  proved that people standing together at a painting for 30 seconds could spark group trends and behaviors. Reading a variety of tweets can certainly cause a lot longer and more intensive interaction than a simple .30 seconds.

Lesson learned: There are some incredibly robust ways to create groups of watchers around each other. When we give them compelling tasks to participate or interact further with, more people will go ahead, watch and interact as well. More viewers who are engaged= greater revenue potential.

How we capitalize on these most basic psychological factors are nearly endless when we start to consider  the multitude of further implications. The moral of the story is that when we can create social behaviors that tie in multiple screens, we can create further engagement and retention. When we engage participatory actions that can be followed by an individual or a group we enhance the content experience and spread it.  There is much more to discuss here, but I will leave that for another Never.no post on the subject! Keep up with our posts on our emerging TV hub

If content is king and data is queen, surely interaction and socialization must be the other two members of the television royal family. I’m not yet making an interlude into anything even digital related, but expressing a truth that has been around for decades, way before the ‘Social TV’ phenomenon we know and love today.

We’ve always been driven to heighten our interaction with entertainment. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers, He-man, Alf, anyone? (I was an 80’s child). We bought these toys of our favorite TV shows so that we could deepen our interaction. People used to talk about Seinfeld and Friends at work, and nowadays still talk about the latest episode of Glee, or game of thrones around the water cooler (and twitter). We’ve voted for our favorite idol via text, simply because we wanted to interact. While Nietzsche may have believed the world is a will to power, I think at the least, the world is a will to participate and television is certainly a ringing endorsement of this thought. Sure, we want a lean back experience, but often a lean back experience where we get to be involved.

This is my segue into the digital. Today’s versions of TV interaction and TV socialization make participating not just something easy, but something that can be robust, seamless and endemic to the programming. A lot of the industry will use the term “Social TV” to describe modern day television socialization, but  many others will state that the term is really quite redundant. TV is social. I prefer to think of most emerging TV formats as a differing term; “Blendable Reality.” A diverse array of methods to blend lean back television content, with our own personal realities encompassing multiple paths to engagement .

So rather than wax lyrically on the philosophical and make this another opinion piece, lets discuss what is possible and take two formats on how we can blend TV with reality in a participative fashion. This post was influenced by utilizing enhanced TV technology platforms such as  never.no (www.never.no)

Choose your own ending/adventure:

  For decades we have been able to  orchestrate television programming that broadcasts live and straight into the homes of audiences. With further tech enablement we can now allow those same audiences to reach back into the studio or set with their digital fingertips in real time. This format allows us to base elements of the show on real-time feedback.

While we often see some very mild and simple versions of voting and polling, imagine the potential of diverse programming formats that lets those same audiences vote to choose the best ending instantly.

-Vote to see which two politicians should go head to head on a question.
- Vote to see which game show contestant should be selected or dismissed.
-Which sports star do you want to see more clips of? Let the at-home audience decide.
-Which news story should we feature tonight?  Tweet us and let us know.
-Do you want to see X reality star take train 1 or train 2? Choose now and watch your results instantly.

This is true participatory television and it‘s easily orchestrated. Why settle for “reality TV” when we can shoot for “choose your own reality TV“?  Television where we have the will, the way and the technology to actually allow those at home to influence it in real time and participate live.

We can engineer the endings of programming based on audience choice and rather than base TV on assumptions. We can give the audience exactly what they want in unique ways and the above examples barely scratch the surface.

Television that Reaches out to the individual rather than the masses:

As discussed above, television has typically been a one to many format. This has worked well, but it can be even better. Why not allow television to reach out to both the masses as well as  home audiences on a one to one basis?  By reaching out to viewers in a personal way we can heighten viewer retention, interaction and loyalty.

-Text/tweet/FB/MMS now to enter a live contest.
- Can you beat this celebrity in a game of trivia?  We’ll pick your answer from our social audiences.
“The next 5 tweets we display live will win a chance to join our next show”.

We can pick specific individuals at home to play along live with linear TV. We can allow home audiences to add their own content. With interactive second screens we can even reward individuals for their participation. Be the first to send us an MMS of you holding a can of Coke (or other branded beverage) and we’ll fly you out to meet the cast. (Had to throw an Ad integration in there…it’s what I know)

We’ll go deeper into these formats some time, but the fact of the matter is that Social TV is already an old term. Creating new forms to enhances the current methodology however, is young, on the cusp and ready to be integrated.  Now.

Speaking of participation,  we’d love to know your thoughts on new ways to re-imagine TV, send us your most engaging ideas on re-imagining TV  to @neverno on twitter and we’ll list the top contenders on our blog with your credits

I thought for my first blog on the behalf of Never.no at (www.never.no) whom,I believe is leading the social TV space, I would tackle a small topic. Ok, that might not be true, but at the least, I have changed my title from “Take That Henry Blodget at Businssinsider” to the current “Long Live Linear: Social TV and Participatory Television”.

Over the past few months there has been a great debate in TV-land. Is linear TV dying? Is the TV business collapsing?  To provide the very brief cliff notes: A slew of experts on both sides of the for/against spectrum have been chiming in their thoughts providing a wide assortment of rationale on both fronts.  There have been data-points, info graphics,  trend analyses, comparative reports and a whole lot of speculation about differing technological developments across the board.

I have personally been fortunate enough to be on the front lines of inspecting and working with a lot of these new technologies as they fascinate me with their potential. That said, it‘s also a pointless debate as some are forgetting the most important element.  It’s not a matter of whether or not linear TV is dying.  It’s a matter of  whether Linear TV has the potential to evolve.  Linear TV cannot die if we can find  new ways to extend and grow it’s appeal in the interactive world in which we find ourselves.  In fact I think we may be entering a new golden age of linear television if we go about it’s development in the right manner. Linear TV can also be entirely complementary to other emerging TV developments without us having to lower our thinking to a black and white fashion.

Let’s use an analogy with something near and dear to my own heart. Food. Up until the 60’s when an individual wanted a meal, they had two options. Cook it, or go to a restaurant.  Not bad options and they easily sufficed.  Then the microwave was invented. It meant that hungry diners could prep and eat any type of meal  on the fly. TV dinner? 2 mins.  Prepared Frozen Burrito? Zap and done. Trader Joe’s orange chicken? On the plate and steaming in 4 minutes without having to go buy, and then prepare a complex range of ingredients.  The microwave made food quick, easy, and on demand – whenever and whatever an eater wanted. From box to plate in minutes and it came with an assortment of food content that went hand in hand with its on-demand nature. But, this didn’t take away from restaurants. Or cooking. Restaurants didn’t die just because people could suddenly prepare new food choices with ease and lack of expense. It was just a different way to consume food with it’s own set of positives and negatives. Restaurants were still an experience, and in some ways, microwaves and novel food technology forced restaurants to become more diverse, and offer more interesting, elevated  experiences.

While I digress, the analogy is weak (I‘m hungry and one track minded). The point is there. Non-linear watching technologies have some incredible benefits as they give the ability to watch what we want, when we want and on whatever device we want. An exceptional consumer benefit. A benefit however, that can cohabitate with the very differing potential of enhanced linear experiences. The fact of the matter, is that if we can elevate linear TV to be interactive and participative with novel social functionality and new forms of content that embrace these technologies, we create an exceptional experience. Linear Television can capture and captivate in entirely new ways that are far deeper than ever imagined. It need not be replaced, it need not die, it just needs to realize its own potential in order to be elevated and enhanced by technology.  As an industry we must also realize, that there are ways to capitalize on the differences between experience types.

Given new technology platforms and products  (I.E. Check out  the case studies offered by Never.no at www.never.no/casestudies),watching an event live  can call consumers to come, enjoy, socialize and interact with each other and with their programming in real time, both in the living room and across digital social circles. Non-linear doesn’t offer this type of experience. If we can conceptualize new ways to orchestrate TV events, we bring consumers into these experiences in new ways.

Watchers can and will adopt or adapt to new experiences that entertain them, intrigue them and captivate them. At the end of the day, it’s not about analyzing the trends in TV consumption and evaluating life or death of any TV model. It’s about creating new trends that allow TV to be something more than it’s ever been before.

Gimmick #1- Incentives for Watching:

We‘re seeing a strong increase in 2nd screen apps that incentify television watching behaviors. Their heart is in the right place.You watch, maybe check in, and get a coupon/gift certificate heightening engagement and increasing loyalty, right?

In order to evaluate why this a poor concept in the entertainment world we have to understand why we engage in TV in the first place. We watch to escape, ( For example,check out Jeremy Toeman’s article here)  We watch to learn, we watch to be entertained and we watch to stay informed. I believe however, that these reasons, especially when it comes to premium content are absolutely incongruous with offering incentives to watch. Yes, consumers love incentives, and yes incentives have their place, but our reasons for watching are our incentives and offering more on the side cheapens the experience and confuses the question of driving content loyalty. Not only do incentives have little role for entertainment, I believe they can sometimes cause a loss to brand image. Offering an incentive means that specific TV content isn’t enough on it’s own to drive watching (or 2nd screen)  behaviors and garner program loyaly.It moves the content away from being a premium offering and turns it into a used car lot of entertainment. (However, it might work fantastically for infomercials)

Imagine you went to a world renown restaurant and the waiter told you that by eating one meal you weren’t  originally interested in, they would give you a  discount on your appetizer.The meal would take on a new form for you and your motivation for eating it. Rather than being loyal to a great experience, you are being loyal to an incentive. You have lost your main reason for going to that restaurant. It would also appear to cheapen the meal. If it was great, why would they need to provide you with an ulterior reason for eating? Television should be just as much of an experience. We should watch it because it entertains us. It allows us to escape. This isn’t to say we can find places where incentives can be utilized better. For example, if a consumer could play along with Jeopardy and receive prizes for success….There is some real magic to be found, but basic incentive offering just for watching? Well, I placed this as gimmick 1 for a reason.

#2 Second Screen functionalities that mimic what can be done simply on the web:

I love the possibilities of the second screen. Truly, I believe there is world of potential here that is beginning to actualize. That said, there is also an abundance of pointlessness that in my opinion provides little value to consumers and skews new offerings. An App that leads me to a wiki, or IMDB or any other basic information source for example is my definition of Gimmick. These are tasks consumers can simply do with a few web keystrokes outside of a destination app. They only provide basic and low level effects to deepen the watching experience. One would hope that media and entertainment organizations as well as the development community will quickly move past the above in order to provide more robust functionalities;Interactive content that is unique to an app, Poling, voting,  gamification-  items that can create novel experiences will be items that move consumers.  A focus on the latter  is needed and the former to be abandoned.
#3 Connected TV  Apps that provide no further functionality than mobile Apps.

How to tie a tie.A weather App that mimics a mobile app. These are excellent if we want to drive consumers away from what could be a far more robust  television experience. If I as a consumer can utilize something on a device that is quick and mobile there is little call to action to become engaged with the same experience on a “Smart TV. All connected TV apps, connected tv advertising and related experiences should capitalize on the unique strengths of the medium. As I often lecture about, television provides a large and immersed screen, it allows for endemic group interaction, and can have stunning displays. If we can create Apps that utilize these features or provide for new levels of engagement to traditional TV content, we take advantage of the medium, and separate it from the limitations of other screens.

We have amazing new technologies that can create amazing new experiences. These experiences can serve to draw consumers further into traditional television in unique ways, create new entertainment experiences and heighten interactivity across devices and across the board. Gimmicks set this process back.  We must leverage our new technologies in ways that form long, robust and most importantly valuable consumer experiences.

The most glaring question being asked about in regards to the Connected TV marketplace is  what advertisers are doing to address the medium and if dollars are already shifting from traditional TV budgets into connected TV.

The short answer to this question, is that I think we have a bit of time on our hands before we see any sort of major budgetary shifts.  I say this in the most bullish way possible, but there exists numerous obstacles that must be overcome in order for large ad dollars to shift from the still effective tried and true towards an embryonic yet rapidly growing medium. The most out in the open of these challenges at current is a lack of  awareness and education of the medium itself, device proliferation not yet at scale, as well as device adoption rates still on the low side. I believe we are several years out, before we really see these areas fully addressed. Behind these big challenges, lay smaller side issues that also must be overcome I.E. standardization, fragmentation challenges, and translation issues between converging industries.What we are beginning to experience however  is an increasingly strong interest (and in my opinion need) to begin  heavy experimenting and testing within the space.There is a striking call to action to do so. Connected TV holds a vast potential superiority over traditional television buys in many ways. We can track, target and create true two way interactivity within connected television platforms in ways that do not mortgage the benefits of the traditional  10 ft screen. We still maintain ads that can be viewed by groups to create immersive and emotive experiences, but can do so in highly advanced ways that marry the strengths of the TV world with that of digital universe.

Now is the time that agencies can begin to play in this new sandbox and create strategy, benchmarks and studies to allow them the knowledge and experience they need to lead the space. With technology and consumer behavioral patterns moving forward at an exponential pace, brands and agencies will need to have the adaptability and agility to transition very quick from the experimental phase into a value driving position.The other large catalyst that will shape ad budgets moving towards Connected TV is not just the general proliferation of devices, but more so, robust and less clunky content experiences that are not on offer to consumers with traditional TV. When we see these begin to expand and drive consumer value,  we will see a huge response to take Ad budget away from traditional TV as we follow consumers where they have the ability to be best engaged.Author: Zachary Weiner is CEO of  emerging TV consultancy CTV advertising and the Co-Founder of the Connected TV Marketing Association (ctvma.org) follow him on twitter at @itvadvertising

So what does my story have to do with Content? Advertising? Connected TV? Plenty.
(Beware: Philosophical and off the cuff article below- I’m working with what I’ve got.)

 Entertainment: Personalized and Interactive.

I spent a lot of time today walking the strip in order to take care of the situation detailed above. Taxis weren’t possible up until I could get the financial situation all sorted. Walking the strip is an exceptional study into how we consume entertainment. You pass by everything from street performers, costumed personas, pirate shows, hawkers selling theater tickets, hawkers selling adult entertainment, offerings for bottle service at clubs, poets, singers, fat Elvis- you get the point. As diverse groups walk around all and I mean ALL of these entertainment options receive an audience. Some watch the street performers, while others walk straight past them. Some buy a $3 poetry book, some buy $250 tickets to shows, while some watch the free Bellagio fountain, but there is a market for all of it. There is a wide consumer base for each of these differing formats to act as entertainment. Short form, long form, free or vastly expensive. This is an incredibly intriguing concept for those creating the future of TV.  As the connected TV landscape grows and new forms of content become possible, there will be an audience. It would even appear to not matter what the content is, or how it is monetized, there will be an audience.

I believe that we will start to see more and more content offerings based on this simple fact. Create it and they will come. Create it and there is a way to monetize it. This is highlighted for premium content, but based on the microcosm of sin city and the “Vegas effect” even content with far less robust production can be considered engaging entertainment. As TV is suddenly able to deliver the same sort of diversity, and the same sort of “watch what we want, when we want, how we want” we suddenly find ourselves in an age, where choice allows for hyper-personalized content to flourish. When demand flourishes, so will new creators of content further changing the entire landscape and business models that fall behind it.

b. This should be common sense, but it bears mentioning. The entertainment options on the street that provided audience interaction, in whatever way, maintained the largest crowds and those that lasted longest. It didn’t matter what it was, but if the performer sought out audience interaction, rather than simple presenting, their audience stayed. We can talk about the lean back nature of TV as much as we would like. We can talk about relaxation and escape, but the fact of the matter is that the more direct two-way interaction we create with audiences, the more engaged they are across mediums. Consumers want to interact. It doesn’t matter if they are walking down the street in Vegas or sitting in front of their couch. If we can come up with new creative forms of interactive engagement that involve our audience, they will participate. Advertisers, mark this down. Your thirty second push is nowhere near as relevant nor powerful as a push that needs involvement. Your new role should be in providing exceptionally engaging experiences that demand robust interaction.

c. Vegas is a entertainment town. Sure, people come for the gambling, but in my opinion they equally come to be entertained in other ways, especially live and in person entertainment. Live shows. Theater. Night Clubs that involve socialization. Street performers. People will travel thousands of miles and spend thousands of dollars to be highly entertained for even a weekend. The emphasis here is on live entertainment. I want to highlight this a selling point to the TV industry. If we can start to mix live entertainment with that of Television and digital experiences to come up with a blendable reality we empower all sides of the spectrum. We can conceptualize experiences that draw crowds from far and wide who are above all else, seeking to be entertained in new and novel ways and are willing to pay for it.

Lastly, I wanted to say a quick Thank You to Tracy Swedlow and the TV of Tomorrow show. I was finally able to prove my identity today, by directing a teller to my website speaker profile at the TVOT Show. It had my name and my photo I.D. available (found here) http://thetvoftomorrowshow.com/SF_2012_speakers and thusly proved my identity. For those of you wondering about the benefits of speaking at conferences, Digital identity should now be included on the list.

People want to come home and just turn on the TV and zone out. It’s a lean back experience.

I hear this all of the time from some folks that I really have a lot of respect for. That said, it’s an opinion that I absolutely do not agree with.  It stems from the antiquated and subjectively myopic belief that the big screen in the middle of the room is there to simply push television programming. This isn’t nor has been the exclusive case in decades. Many aspects of the industry need to stop thinking of the TV as a passive watching experience and start thinking of it as living room entertainment and utility medium that can be as lean back or as lean forward as any individual desires. The medium has grown in it’s functionality and will continue to do so. Yes, there will always be ways to engage  in a lean back manner and this usage will continue strongly. That said, there remains a multitude of use cases otherwise.

We’ve been gaming on the big screen for decades. This is not a lean back experience. We have been shopping on TV for decades, this also is not just a lean back experience.  Participation TV has become more and more of a force and will continue to evolve as interactivity becomes more seamless within the device and within the second screen.  The living room has become a stronghold for gaming, for commerce, and for socialization in many forms and this is only spreading with the march of technology. I liken the above statement to those who claimed  for years that the telephone was only a means for direct one on one communications and that nobody would want to engage the web on small screens. Hmm.

Continuing in this line of thought, as television becomes a connected watching experience we can continue to create new behaviors around the TV that can still allow relaxation or allow deeper engagements. New forms of gaming blended with content,  new forms of  audience participation- live included , rich interactive virtual travel experiences, rich social experiences, and rich educational experiences for both children and adults. The ability to interact with content and create experiences on a big immersed screen will continue to drive consumers to decide if they want a relaxing or action packed experience and undertake both.

Here is an opportunity laden stream of thought that I want everybody to consider. The entertainment/TV industry has changed. I speak on this rather often and usually in the context of connected TV,  social TV and multi-screen marketing methodology.  It’s an obvious statement , but one that is still overlooked. If you have any part of the TV industry I want you to repeat a new mantra. You are now the ambassadors of living room experiences, not just living room content. You are not television programming creators. You are not advertising creators. You are not  simply content distributors. You are experience creators. Create the option to have those experiences apply to the action seeker, or the relaxation seeker as today’s living room explorer is both.

 Nobody wants to use Social Media Apps like Facebook or Twitter from their Television.

We also hear this all the time when it comes to Connected TV and the user experience at current of social media within the device. This is another one of those small in scope statements.

First, lets come to the conclusion that social media is still greatly evolving and  need not just be viewed in terms of  Facebook or Twitter.  New items will manifest as new capabilities and needs allow them to. Lets also assume that as the living room becomes more connected, we will see evolutions in those two big boys as well to take advantage of the new behaviors around the  medium. As consumers  begin to experience a large screen with digital capabilities and group user experiences, one would be naive to believe that new modes, methods and platforms for differing social functionality will not arise. Do consumers want to simply interact with Facebook or Twitter as things stand currently? Maybe, Maybe not. Will social media develop around the TV encompassing new elements that apply themselves to a larger screen and group or solo  watching experiences? Of course.

TV is changing. The idea of what  “TV” is,  is changing. As technology marches onwards it will continue to change consumer behavioral patterns. It will continue to change the nature of the living room. To think otherwise is to be left behind.

That said, there are some factors that are stable, that will barely change and that entertainment, advertising and content organizations should be focused on nearly as much as their conjecture and debate on unknowns and predictions. These truths  may be evident and will not change drastically, yet rarely do they come into the conversation or taken into consideration. Where do these factors lie? Within basic human psychology and cognition.

The human mind will continue to manage content in the ways it’s always been wired to- though the methods in which we can be presented with TV entertainment have drastically changed.  

Books could be written on this topic. Luckily there are many obvious lessons that we have learned about the nature of TV entertainment and how the human mind reacts to it over decades of experience. There is far less understanding however, when we bring the mind away from just TV watching and into deeper multiscreen experiences.  I will quote an item from a differing context that a representative of Netgem was kind enough of to share with me recently.

“We believe that the difficulty lies in supporting consumer behavior in what academics would label a psychosocial context. As the left side of the brain is engaged when browsing the internet, this is a rational act with active involvement. However viewing the television is both passive and emotional- the exact opposite behavior and it’s function lies in the right side of the brain. Switching from one hemisphere to the other creates confusion and can result in an uneasy behavior state.”

This is a deeply interesting thought when starting to think about  second screen companions, and how we start creating experiences with connected TV as well. The implications here for advertisers, content creators and experience creators can not be ignored.  Those who discover ways to bridge this gap, may find some real magic.  In the meantime, it should be at the least something to start taking into consideration when crafting user experiences.

Average Attention span capacity will not drastically change, yet the need to process, negotiate and capitalize on new disruptions will increase. 

The maintained estimates of human attention span is that focused attention span can be as brief as approximately 8 seconds long.  While this seems short, one must be careful not to confuse this with sustained attention spans which tend to fall around twenty minutes for most adults.  Focused attention is a short term response to stimuli, while sustained is the ability to stay on  task consistently over time. So in terms of our numerous devices,  there are potential interruptions that can disrupt our viewing, interaction, or engagement that may come from a differing screen outside of  the screen where we sustain our attention.

Furthering this point, many studies have found that  the more multitasking we tend to do, the less working memory we tend to have. This is something for advertisers to start thinking about. In a world where we increasingly multitask around the TV, how do we create at least 8 seconds of  enjoyable disruption- on any potential screen?  This seems to be somewhat uncharted territory for the ad world in a society where 80% of second screen users utilize their devices while watching TV. Creatives—start your engines.

Our cognitive decision making processes will not change, yet we will find ourselves in a world of ever-increasing  TV choices.  

There have been several studies that claim that choice is good, but only to a point. Colombia University’s Iyengar and Stanford’s Lepper  (JPSP Paper Vol 79, No 6) demonstrated empirically the downsides of excessive choice in a study which concluded that consumers were more likely to make a new purchase out of  a choice of 6 items rather than having 24 choices.  Rather than directing this at advertisers, I think there is room to direct this towards content owners/providers. We suddenly find ourselves in a place, where TV can offer nearly unlimited choice. How we go ahead and offer, package and allow discovery of  this however, will potentially determine success. While the idea of offering consumers anything at their fingertips may make sense in some scenarios, in other scenarios, less may be more. At the end of the day, unlimited entertainment choice may be an excellent thing, but only if consumers have an easy way to choose, categorize and ultimately decide upon it.

My commentary here is more of a thought experiment than an ability to go into solid further implications. I believe the actual implications may be able to be gathered in a multitude of directions. That said, we are in uncharted psychological territory. Territory that needs exploration and conclusions drawn across various disciplines with psychology playing a more central role.  Can you guess who we’ll be adding on to our consulting team in the near future?

One of the most exciting elements of working in emerging technologies and new media is in trend predication. Deciphering consumer trends and behavioral directions to ascertain a variety of patterns that deeply affect business initiatives provides both challenges and opportunities. One exciting facet of these predictive endeavors is in watching various opinions arise by differing experts as to where/how the chips will fall and affect the marketplace. One argument that I feel compelled to comment upon is whether TV will become smarter or more dumb. There are numerous arguments in favor of or against connected TV sets  becoming smarter devices capable of handling a myriad of entertainment and interactive tasks. There is also the believe that television will become outsourced to our tablets, simply flinging our entertainment content onto a simple big screen that acts solely as a screen.

I am deeply respectful and appreciative of both views. On a personal level and that of my firm CTV Advertising, either direction this takes is a boon for content owners and advertisers as both modes of connectivity allow for deeply interactive big screen experiences and marketing potential. That said, there has been a lot of commentary coming from the “TV will grow dumber” camp and so I wanted to highlight a few barriers to this point of view and list some items that need thought.

Outsourcing our entertainment to our tablets and than taking that content and pushing it onto the big screen seems to take care of some very temporary user experience problems visible in current iterations of “Smart TV”. That said, the benefits of a tablet for consumers are also the device’s greatest downfall when it comes to TV watching.  These elements include; portability, personalization and a multi-functional device nature.

Why Tablets may not become your device to control the big screen-

1. Portability:

Lets highlight an example of how portability becomes a barrier to TV sets becoming less smart. Imagine, you are watching TV with your family and taking the content from your tablet  and pushing it to the 10ft screen.

You realize it’s time to leave for that haircut appointment and you need to take your tablet with you. When you do so, you have just interrupted everybody elses watching. TV watching is often a group experience. When you remove your tablet, other watchers now need to find a new outlet with which to watch. Does each family member come equipped in the living room with their own tablet in case you decide to leave? Probably not. For that matter will consumers want to adjust and switch tablets and find the same content each and every time someone decides to make their exit? Again, probably not. So the portability of the tablet means that television watching now necessitates that the watched (“the control”) tablet stays in the room/house . This is a potentially vast problem for a world on the go.

Of course we can solve this problem by saying… Perhaps there will be a tablet specific just to the TV. It could stay in the room and be used specifically for TV entertainment in any form. In this instance however, we are asking consumers to not just buy and upgrade their big screen, but also to buy a tablet that is needed to watch that screen with? Two rather expensive purchases? And what happens when that  living room tablet gets lost?  One would imagine that it’s a lot more expensive to replace/repair than say a remote (if these will still exist)

We can’t expect consumers to buy and maintain two separate devices to do what they can with one today.  It necessitates a far greater investment, greater upkeep and creates  buyer fragmentation on several levels.  Maybe to address the challenge of a lost or broken tablet, we stabilize or nail down the device so the child in your family can’t just take it into their room and watch content or so you don‘t forget it at work rendering your screen uncontrolled. Now, with it stabilized we have a control device that we can‘t lose, can’t be utilized in secret by the child in your family when they should be sleeping, and can’t be easily destroyed by the family dog. In stabilizing it however, the control device can’t be used in any position any time. Say goodbye to flipping through content while on the couch. The stabilized  control device has to be reached to be accessed. Not so very lean back.   In these examples of tablet usage for the TV, we have complicated all levels of the TV experience.

2. Personalization:

A tablet is a personal device that contains within it a myriad of personal information based on your behaviors and actions while using it. This will also mean personal entertainment content. Content that perhaps you don’t want to share with your family or friends when you gather around your dumb and limited screen?

Complicating this, us advertisers will be following your online behavior across your personal devices and targeting and re-targeting messages based on your personal actions. This means that while watching the dumber big screen controlled by your tablet,  those Rogaine ads are going to pop up when your friends are over to watch a game. That date whom you invite over to watch a movie is going to be privy to all of those personal health advertisements that may come up. Is this something consumers want? Groups having access to their personal device content and advertisements?

3. Necessity for separate interaction:

We know that most of the consumer public is now utilizing their second screen device while watching TV. (Although rarely in conjunction with the content) Many in the dumb screen camp will state this won’t effect the other functionality/usages of the personal device/tablet, as one can  simply have their TV apps run in the background.

This is a bit naive in my opinion. If you take your content from your personal device to your TV, this means that every time you want to watch something new or change entertainment experiences you will need to go back to your personal device and switch out of whatever else you were utilizing it for. Do you want a group deciding each and every time you have to switch out any other App you are using to go back to control your entertainment?  Or each time you have a program on without a group, are you willing to close out and stop ANYTHING else you are doing just to change the programming?

A control for your TV that is separate from your personal device, makes sense. You can multi-task without having to switch and close out from anything you are doing on either. It creates device separation which is sometimes a very needed thing given digital attention spans and multitasking in real time.

There are two sides to this story and on both sides some very complicated factors that come into play. Consumers will always cherish the ability to gather together around a big screen and become immersed in an entertainment experience. While we can criticize current iterations and even the term “Smart TV” it would seem to me that many of these criticisms are due more to the emerging status of the device and are changeable/improvable with time and new evolutions like all devices go through.  I am less likely to believe however, that we can change the macro nature of consumer behavior when it comes to merging a group device with a personal device. My two cents.

There is a rather pervasive thought being thrown around about the nature of television  with special consideration on the growing  death of group watching behaviors. I wanted to clarify an important area to consider as there is a very contrarian view to this current and in my opinion, ill advised philosophy. Most recently Virgin made some claims in the Telegraph article Here

To put forth the proposition that group watching behavior will die  is nearly absurd.  More so than being absurd it’s incredibly short sighted.Let me give credit where credit is due.Can we suddenly watch TV content on smaller and more personal screens anywhere around the house we’d like? Yes. Of course. Can we suddenly receive more personalized viewing experiences with less scarcity and more choice? Yes, we can. Can we time shift any programming and watch when we please? Yup. There are some aspects of group watching behavior that have indeed strongly changed.
Now, will we stop craving the visceral experiences of the big screen and even more so, the group watching socialization that accompanies it? Absolutely not. If anything, on the horizon is the next great iteration of television group interaction. There will be incredible new experiences (At CTV Advertising we’re working on “Blendable reality” even now) to actually create more engagement and turn TV watching, into entertainment immersion.  Yes, that’s right, novel ways to bring groups around the TV (and other devices).

In the near future we are going to see interactive group gaming and watching taken to a whole new level. A merge that allows people to gather and partake in stimulating content that involves multiple parties and can expand  outside the home and back in. A range of new experiences and an  evolution, but certainly not a death.A new phoenix rising.

I can talk about this all day long, but lets break down two very simple facts,  just so we can say we did.

1. We don’t need an Aristotle quote to tell us that humans are social animals.

We are. According to our societal, evolutionary and genetic makeup we will always be social animals, and will always seek out social experiences that serve to engage all five senses. This means we will always seek to be around other people. This is why the real world supersedes the digital in terms of experience it can offer. Five senses.  No matter how robust our social networking can become, it will never replace family dinners, meeting friends for drinks or going surfing (for this guy at least) with buddies.  Online/Offline will always be two differing needs that can play very well together. In basics, give people a good call to action to gather around a screen TOGETHER, with a great UX and they will.

2. Our digital world is always moving in the direction of becoming more integrated with our real world social tendencies. Not isolated or away from them!

All of our digital social technology is in a constant move towards deep integration into  our group and real world experiences.  Once online social media was the domain of the personal computer and only at home. Not anymore. We live tweet on location with our family at concerts. We check into foursquare restaurants with our friends. We Youtube our children right at Disney. We Link-in right at conferences and we check into shows with friends.  We are as a whole,  more social in person because of online social media.

Viewing TV entertainment is the exact same. While the sudden ability to watch TV on both a big screen as well as anywhere on little screens might seem to make it a more personal experience, in reality all it does is give it a deeper ability to become a true group activity as well.

If anything I believe television will turn into more of a entertainment grouping of devices that can be as lean back or lean forward as one chooses. Like I often speak of, we will have unbelievable group experiences based on video content, gaming, and location both in and out of the home that can merge together.  Groups will have a reason to actually get together and watch/interact/play/socialize with the device as a group, but also with a larger digital social circle as well.

While we may be becoming more like cyborgs by the day carting our digital appendages with us everywhere, we are not becoming Cyborg “hermits”. Digital experiences become integrated more deeply with traditional experiences as technology marches on, it does not create greater separation!  It creates more group behaviors. And TV- will be no different.

It was a simple setup, where we had the couch consultants, answer questionaires and create direct observation reports on numerous second screen advertising initiatives prior to, in the middle of and after the Super-bowl. A total of ten couch consultants were used and spread across differing demographics.  We’ll be distilling further information to our clients in these regards, but here are some interesting highlights.

Let me first preface as well. My firm has a strong focus on Connected TV, but we also do quite a lot within the multiscreen space and view the television ecosystem holistically. I am incredibly confident with the direction of 2nd screen synced ad spots, but believe there is a lot of work to be done and a lot of improvements that need to be made. I am quite sure that some enthusiastic results will come from this years 2nd screen experiments, but these need to be taken into consideration with full perspective of various conflicting factors and an eye on future research that needs to be conducted. The following examples highlight some of the areas that may need improvement. In the next article, I will provide some thoughts and perspective on the below, and how it relates to differing devices and methodologies.

1.  Second Screen Synced Ad spots can be socially disruptive:

Six out of ten of our couch consultants (All independent of one another) made this claim in differing ways. It appeared that most watched the super bowl with a group and the need to focus on “tagging” a commercial for say an App like Shazam, waiting for the content to be recognized and further interacting with it, caused an inability to actually focus on the people around them. This means that they lost certain abilities/potential to socialize in-person with their group around them. Whether this socialization focused on an Ad or external items.

We quoted one C.C.  “My friends were pretty angry that I sat there head down rather than talking to them about the Ads or anything else, I missed most of the conversations and felt pretty antisocial.”

2. Certain second screen spots may* cause lower engagement with the first screen television spot:

Having to actually focus on interacting with the advertisement on either a mobile or tablet meant that our C.Cs had little time to actually watch an Ad spot on the big screen. This was commented on by four out of ten couch consultants. When trying to engage  deeper with an ad spot, focusing on the second screen and the calls to action needed to do so, meant less focus on the actual advertisement.There are a lot of potential ramifications to think about here which we’ll eventually delve into further in future posts.

“I’d watch bits and pieces of the Ad, but most of the time I was playing with my Ipad.I interacted, but couldn’t tell much about the  Ad on TV. I barely watched a lot of the Ads.”

3. Device problems and fragmentation created advertising issues.

Seven out of ten of our consultants found issues with the actual process of the second screen experience.  Several claimed  issues with the recognition of content, claiming loud conversations and a seat not right next to the television created functional/operational problems with their second screen.

Another issue across the board was  second screen app fragmentation  across differing apps and Ad spots. Many claimed not knowing which Ads could be interacted with and which couldn’t, and where to find those that could meant that they had issues knowing when they could and couldn’t interact with Ad spots.

“Some I could play with, some I couldn’t. By the end I gave up as it was just  a hassle. I tried showing my friends what I was up to and often they just looked at me in confusion when it didn’t work or nothing displayed. ”

4. Programming related Companion Content was well received:

Our couch consultants across the board found that companion programming content on their second screen Apps was useful. The ability to interact in a longer  manner with content delivered over a synced second screen when available, proved an interesting and useful utility. Many enjoyed having access to features that were tailored to the program itself and the elements that surrounded the game.

” Loved being able to get game stats in one easy location while I was interacting with other game  and advertising content.”

5. Incentives went a long way for our couch consultants to create engagement.

Eight of out ten couch consultants were happy to further interact with spots that offered them something back.  The sweeping approval of incentives crossed the border of the differing incentives offered. These reward based initiatives seemed to create higher engagement across the board.

“I entered a sweepstakes and helped donate to causes by certain commercials. This excited me and led me onwards, but most of the Ads that didn’t have anything for me to gain  didn’t make me want to follow them any further. They’re just Ads.”

We have plenty of more insights, some we’ll be distilling publicly and some more directed towards clients. We feel there is an unbelievable amount of power held within the second screen. That said we are also just as convinced as we have been that many areas can be greatly served by initiatives found within the first screen, especially a connected primary screen.  I’ll be signing out now to continue going over our initial reports, (as well as nursing my pizza hangover) but expect some further thoughts coming soon.

Author: Zachary Weiner is the owner of CTV Advertising- A boutique Connected TV Marketing firm as well as the North American President of the Connected TV Marketing Association.  @itvadvertising  @CTVMA

So I promised a CES wrap-up and my thoughts on the Connected TV landscape including its numerous changes, innovations, evolution and yes, even challenges.  Like any year though and like any event, there is no such thing as a true “wrap-up”. CES and all of the numerous events that impact converging media and converging industries are always in a state of constant evolution and so a wrap-up would be a misnomer. Rather, it’s an evolution that takes years to take shape. That said, a growing image of the Connected TV market is taking place and it’s nothing short of exciting. Here is the latest in the spectrum from CES and the weeks before and after.

Opportunity:  Well, if anything I think many of us in the industry could confirm a certain and drastically growing attention to connected TV. Differing from even a year ago, the ecosystem was on the minds and tongue tips of numerous sectors from the technology, entertainment, media and advertising world.  There is very good reason for this.  Informa recently predicted a growth rate from 80 million sets connected in 2011, to a predicted 892 Million by 2016. As reported by Futuresource consulting, forecasts exceeding 80% of television units shipped by 2015 are expected to be connected, from the 27% in 2011.

There were more than just research organizations making these predictions, with many device manufacturers claiming ranges from 80-92% of their devices moving forward would be connected. These predications were listened to seriously by all of the sectors mentioned above, with many speculating on how to address the potential changes and opportunity.

Media Attention: Connected TV as a novel platform for content distribution and advertising was explicitly covered. This should be an incredible area of note in and of itself for those within the industry, as media attention alone causes a disruptive factor.

When major media sources such as Forbes, and the BBC start reporting on the growing opportunity in the space in addition to the more niche publications like Gigaom, ITVT ,Appmarket.tv, and beet.tv  it reaches new players, new consumers and new thought leaders. This means that with increased attention, new organizations will start focalizing on the space and it’s opportunities for good or ill.

At the moment with increasing coverage, there is, in my opinion an amazing amount of room for new innovators and key players to come to market as well as those who can hopefully help to provide some expectation management, as many of the challenges that have been present, are still present. Whether these are issues with fragmentation, lack of research, lack of standards and even lexicon confusion. Many of these issues will be a focal point for the Connected TV Marketing Association, which had several of our members on the ground and deeply analyzing the challenges ahead.

Hot Topics: 

Remotes: or the lack thereof. An incredible amount of innovation was on display for voice control, gesture control, new versions of remotes, new devices acting as remotes and general musings as to what format will be best. At the end of the day, user experience will be the strongest factor in the adoption and penetration of any of these choices.

Connected TV Advertising:

One would be hard pressed to ignore the announcements and news erupting in the space, all of which quite exciting. Samsung announced their SmartTV Adhub initiatives following on the heels of LG’s announcement earlier in the year, both having a correlation with YuMe.

Rovi who has been endemic in the space for a period of time also announced a furthering of their advertising relationship with Samsung, while also unveiling a second-generation, unified entertainment discovery and access solution. Adrise announced seeing an exponential rise in Connected TV advertising, and is now said to be working with numerous video ad networks.

In general there is a growing excitement in the market, with an unbelievable amount of new players getting vested in the area. It should be exciting to watch where the chips fall, but with the knowledge that the opportunities are in a strong growth cycle.

I also had the opportunity to speak with many brands, who on a separate side of the marketing spectrum were quite intrigued with the prospect for branded entertainment within the connected TV App environment.

TV Apps: I couldn’t exclude this as an area of extreme interest, potential and announcements.  Numerous organizations announced the creation of new TV apps, growing interest in Apps and incredibly exciting developments in the creation of new experiences within apps, powered by such items as content recognition and social interaction.  There were also quite a few companies showcasing novel areas to be addressed such as ehealth, and education.

I can go on for days, but will save everybody’s vision. In my regards, I think CES 2012 provided me enough potential fodder for the next year.  Of course with some 35 more related events coming up in the next six months or so, I have no doubts that there will be some amazing new announcements that may even take many of us by surprise.  Now, that’s a wrap. Or is it?

As a marketer I’ll tell you that it’s incredibly easy to get both lost and excited at the universe of information presented. The world of marketing  has intersected with technology at  an even greater degree than ever before and technology truly powers our ability to bring the highest levels of engagement and value to consumers worldwide.

This ability however is also central to a  strict precaution that I will provide further below. This year CES will have announcements of further shifts and disruptions to the television and digital  industries. The world of television and video is changing drastically and you will see an immense amount of coverage on Connected TV and thusly Connected TV Marketing and Connected TV Advertising.  In my opinion, 2012  is indeed going to be the year where television truly becomes “Connected” and so will the marketers and advertisers who engage the medium.

It will affect the ways in which we do business now and in the future. BUT even with it’s massive implications,  it’s only a small piece of the marketing puzzle. I am in constant humbled awe at the power of technology to activate actionable marketing strategies, but I am more in awe with the ability of organizations to tap into consumer psychology far before tapping into technology.  Give a brilliant marketer a stick and he’ll figure out a way to move the minds and hearts of the masses with it. Give a lesser marketer every piece of high technology in the world and all you’ll have is a confused marketer.

I sometime believe it is a shame that CES is not proceeded by something I entitle the CB show- “The consumer behavior show”. Perhaps one day we’ll enable events to intertwine the two even deeper. With my new role as the  North American president of the Connected TV Marketing Association I am more enthused than I have ever been with the direction in which the industry is heading. But in the above regards, I  do have a few quick points to think about.

1. Technology is an enabler of marketing. But a deep understanding of technology does not create brand excellence. It is as implied above, a deep understanding of consumer behavior and psychology. While following the show and while discerning how to utilize  new items like Connected TV and enhanced social TV, keep this in mind first.  New tech is simply that, new tech and doesn’t change the fundamentals.  The fundamentals are solely optimized.

2.  It’s easy to become lost in a sea information without any true understanding. Focus on the areas that make sense to your business today, while keeping an eye on all future potential. There are many who adopt for the sheer sake of adopting, which can be a  road to ruin.

3. For those of you at CES, put on your running shoes, drink extra water and be prepared for some amazing news and announcements, it should be an great show and an excellent segue into a truly fascinating year.

On behalf of myself, my CTVMA Co-founder James Grant Hay and all the representatives of the Connected TV Marketing Association, I wish everybody a fantastic and prosperous  CES 2012.

Author: Zachary Weiner is the owner of CTV Advertising- A boutique Connected TV Marketing firm as well as the North American President of the Connected TV Marketing Association.  @itvadvertising

Saying that  video/TV content is becoming even more  fragmented is an understatement. As a consumer I can watch  incredible amounts of content across multiple screens from differing sources and this is growing with increased technology, as many certainly know from my numerous Connected TV articles.

Watching behaviors are also changing  as things start to move in the direction of increased non-linear consumption patterns. It seems entertainment providers are slowly beginning to catch on and are now offering more experiences that deepen their content which include: social engagement, companion applications and synced screens to provide deeper interaction. My thought however is that moving further into the future, this will not be enough to drive the relevant audience behaviors content providers desire.  Content providers will need to be far more creative and in my opinion create  “blendable reality” engagements, as will be discussed below.

Here are some quick (and intersecting)  factors that create less engagement:

Technology enhanced attention deficit disorders: The living room isn’t where the family just gets together to watch TV. It’s where everybody can engage in eight differing tasks all at once. Less and less of these need to be television oriented.  Television without a strong call to action to interact with it will receive less and less mindshare and become more of a “lean back, while your head is tilted towards your second screen device” experience.  While it’s wishful to think this second screen can have synched content throughout the programming it’s not overly realistic in the long term. Consumers have too many other choices for their rapidly shifting attention spans.

Limitations on repeatable experiences:  Television doesn’t provide a call to action to repeat watching over and over. You watch and you’re done. This is a far cry from say social endeavors or…. game playing.

Playing a game is an addictive behavior.  The same content is repeatable and repeatable with differing results each time. It’s also an experience that allows us to compete against one another, gain real or imaginary incentives and  kill time quick. Five minutes here, five minutes there.  This might explain some of the success of Apps like Angry birds or Fruit Ninja.  It requires little investment, no appointment necessary and yet  fulfills multiple psychological needs repeatedly.

Lack of focus and engagement: It’s great that television can provide a lean back or lay down experience if one desires. This is becoming less and less the case however.  More and more users utilize their second screen device on their couches and as stated there are a lot of options of what to do with this device outside of synched behaviors.

Now…

Real life requires a lot more investment. When we meet a date for a drink, we’re focused on them (mostly) . A trip to the gym and we’re focused on it. A hike, a bike, running errands, walking down the sidewalk, looking for a store, driving, etc… these are things that we have to devote far more mindshare and attention to. While we are starting to see more initiatives to bring screens into the real world around tasks and locations there are fewer calls for endemic interaction with specific entertainment content.

Blendable reality

I think a key to this for the entertainment providing community isn’t just augmented reality, but more so, blendable reality (Coined Phrase!)  which doesn‘t necessarily need reality to be augmented, just reality engaged with entertainment content in an immersed way.  Blending entertainment content  with real life and the ability of Connected/Synced and sometime augmented  screens allow us to take the engagement needed in the real world into  the world of content and let them play together in one deep experience.

The Blend.  Entertainment media moving forward will, and I’m not saying this gently WILL succeed if it blends the short term and snackable ability of digital with longer term real life experiences. Especially those that can be repeated with differing results.  Since TV can now exist in both the living room and outside of the home we can create a blended reality experience that calls consumers to action. We can create an experience that sometimes requires and demands the need for attention  in the real world with repeatable experiences like the gaming world while still allowing the personalization of a second screen device and the group watching of the big screen.

We can even start to conceptualize ways that numerous areas of technology can intersect, bridging TV content, with real life and maybe even some augmented reality layered on top of that. What’s interesting is that we can conceptualize simple ways to do so, with seamless user experiences across devices and places.

1. Real life group interaction around the TV. This is an easy one. Television content can create endemic group interaction in real time. Gaming activities mingled with content requiring multiple in-person or even “across the street” interaction.

2. Immersive Calls to action to bring the content into the real world and interact with it.  Entertainment content that needs outside factors to be optimized. Content that requires people to go out and experience real life with it.

3. Immersive  Calls to action to bring the real world into the television. We have devices that can take elements from reality and sync them back in the living room. The possibilities here are nearly endless when we start to imagine ways that we can bring pictures, videos, items and socialization that occurs outside the home, back into the home and have it interact with our entertainment content.

In other words, there is a plethora of activities smart entertainment providers can embark upon to create a perfect blend of short term attention spans, with long form content and repeatable behaviors.

This is starting to ramble, but in a future post, I’ll in some depth ways to accomplish the above strategies with a special flair for Connected TV Marketing strategies.  For now Happy 2012 to all.

Our belief is that  often marketers look at things with a very myopic “marketer” perspective that is quite polarized from consumers. We spend so much time studying the habits of consumers that we forgot what it’s like to truly be one.  Even outside research that comes in, we often see with our own perceptions which skews the real view.

These couch consultants all come from differing backgrounds and we have selected them based on individual criteria that separates them from each other. I.E One watches heavy amounts of sports, whereas another is a reality junkie. The reason for this article however, is that  there have been some across the board wants, desires and statements that we thought were quite interesting. I have described these below.  It would seem to be important for marketers and content providers alike to think about this.

1. Group Gathering: A term a lot of us in the future TV Advertising world will talk a lot about is the potential of  personalized TV. Television isn’t always personalized, in fact sometimes it’s the opposite.

It’s often about the group. We have a plethora of personal devices. Phones, tablets, and Pcs. While we are able to engage in very social activities using these personal devices and convene around events with these devices, there are few items that brings together a group in real life with one just device. It’s not easy to gather a family around a tablet for instance.  This is different with television. Our couch consultants across the board have stated that they would love to see more group related activities endemically offered by TV.  Television with even greater calls to action to watch together. The big screen and it’s ability to be watched by all, has one great advantage to the small screen. We can watch the exact same thing, and interact with the exact same device without any  fragmentation that takes place on personal devices.  We can interact together. We can create live experiences and groups around it.

Point: This is exceptionally interesting from the standpoint of creating a consumer experience that is deeper within the device.  New methods , ways and potentially new TV apps that bring groups to watch together more frequently have value.  If we can dream up new ways to create group watching, the Television medium and the advertising behind it gets a massive lift- the experience is deepened in an endemic and device specific way.

2. Simple device related actions: Outside of group watching, the couch consultants said that the TV format was excellent to just zone out. It reinforces the  lean-back nature of the device.  That said, nearly every couch consultant, did want  simple calls to action to deepen their watching experience on a Connected device. While many admitted to using second screens, they often didn’t want to go that “deep” into the TV experience. They used the second screen to multi-task other areas.  Rather they wanted simple ways to just point and click on a few elements on the big screen that held interest and didn’t need much attention.

Point: While of course us marketers want to do everything to deepen the television experience, sometimes we should be focused more on what consumers are naturally doing than trying to push for more. There must be differing strategies and each should be tested accordingly. Certain Apps and interactive TV experiences might be well orchestrated to provide not just lean back but also  “lay-down” functionality.  Creating interactivity, simply, seamlessly and not requiring a second screen or companion device.

3. Choice:  Our couch consultants were across the board excited about potential new content coming to TV. The ability to have diverse options for programming, movies and nontraditional content. BUT- They also were fearful of this. Many liked to know that while options exist they weren’t overloaded with them and nearly all of them like that TV is an area that is less cluttered to navigate than the internet. While the idea of new content is exciting, even with enhanced discovery options and social graphs, individuals wanted to know that  not just their friends, but WIDE audiences were also watching programming they enjoyed.

Point: It’s not just about tons of options and personalized TV. There are other social and psychological factors at play. People care about more than just what their social graph is interested by. They want to know they are staying socially relevant with their watching and that social relevance moves beyond just their peers. Equally they want simple and easy ways to know they are finding the right programs and not feel overloaded.

Interesting food for though as the TV and connected TV Marketing continues it’s rapid evolution.

You see when my firm CTV Advertising and I started having conversations about the platform, we were barely heard, let alone understood. Even much later when I started writing these posts with an emphasis on Smart Television, they received very little traction and a lot of confusion. This has shifted incredibly, even over the past six months. We suddenly have major publications covering the Connected TV World. We suddenly have major industry players that are taking more than just deep glances into the potential this industry holds. There are real conversations being held that are more than just skin deep. It’s been amazing to see the developments and truly inspiring to notice the awareness being created. I am incredibly thankful for this as I no longer have to sound like some strange fanatic.

So in the spirit of the holidays and looking forward to the next holiday- Here is my Gift wish list for the industry.

1. Extensive User Experience Research.  I can say this over and over and hear a room full of agreements when I speak/lecture.  Back behind closed doors though, we see folks who want to treat the television platform the exact same as mobile, tablet and PC.It’s not and the user experience is quite different. Than  we hear how the value to the consumer is the most important aspect of creating…well anything really- Yet there are Apps being made that give these consumers incredibly little value. It takes research. Sometimes a lot of it. My thought to all marketers wanting to engage the platform in new ways is to invest some time into research and experiments  to  understand the psychological and sociological  consumption patterns of the platform and it‘s audiences.  I’d love to see some intensive research come out about the short term and long term effects of truly “interactive television” and it’s accompanying factors.  Gift #1: Intensive research.

2. Enhanced translation between parties.  It’s no surprise anymore that marketers over the past decade +, have had to really brush up on their technological skills.  In the past there was less device/medium specific information that needed to be understood to advertise. I.E. Nobody needed to know the working functions of the printing press to place an Ad spot in a paper. This has changed and we now need the full cooperation of a multitude of technological areas to orchestrate certain campaigns. This is especially true for the future of television. That said, the differing sides of this industry all speak very differing languages.  I’d love to see some common ground reached for the Connected TV industry so that everybody can understand one another.  I’m looking for common translation across the board and across industries for the benefit of all.

3. Risk- I’m not telling marketers to take on a massive handful of risk with any new technology/platform/medium. What I am saying is that recently I had someone at a very large agency tell me that the safest, most traditional route is usually the “smarter” bet they take. This deeply bothered/saddened  me as I am a believer that the marketing world should be creative and push the limits and explore. I’m a believer in all of those cheesy inspirational posters that taught me to “Dare to be different” or that the “Progress always involves risk”  My last and final gift that I think the marketing, entertainment, and television world might be able to offer is some risk taking in day to day operations and innovation.

I want certain industry sectors to have the understanding that in a time of great disruption there exists some unbelievable new ground to cover and while there are challenges and risks, there is also payoff and reward. Those who go big or go home, will prosper and hopefully set the stage for the rest of us. I’d love to see innovators who can take some risk, marketers who understand that pushing the edge can sometimes be an amazing thing and content executives that realize that those who don’t take a risk will without a doubt  one day fall into obscurity and become swallowed by a sea of providers who do.

I don’t think I’m being overly greedy.

Zachary Weiner is the owner of CTV Advertising- A boutique Connected TV Marketing firm as well as the North American President of the Connected TV Marketing Association.  @itvadvertising

They’ve been heralded, especially from the Ad world as a solution of sorts. As a way to deepen the television experience, personalize content, allow for both group and personal watching behaviors, while also serving up  synched Ads. I hear the term ACR more than I hear “How about that weather?” and I live in Chicago.  There is hype and novelty and some incredible potential.  There are also inherent issues here that nobody seems to be discussing as they pat themselves on the shoulders.

I am actually a huge proponent of a merge between tablets/mobile and television, but before we continue to just start launching every type of App possible, lets consider some barriers. Like I said, I love choice, but I want those choices to all be excellent. Not to swim in a sea of subpar 2nd screen solutions. I’m also a marketer who believes in the long game. I don’t care what’s hot for 6 months. I want something sticky.  SO…

What Choices do I believe only have a short term future?

Immersive TV programming companion Apps

Companion apps that create long form interaction with programming is not well attuned to current and future behavioral patterns.  This is a big area being discussed at the moment as a way to make live programming more relevant. It’s heart is in the right place. I deeply want to like it as it has “Cool factor”. The truth of the matter however, is that very few individuals are going to sacrifice the entirety of their second screen device from doing anything else but interacting with  programming. My generation (generation Y) barely has an attention span. Those that follow Y have even less.

While watching TV people are emailing, they are texting, they are calling, they are looking at Facebook photos, checking for cheap flights, googling a good restaurant for their next date. Maybe they’re working, or editing a school paper. Point being is that there is numerous  items and tasks to engage with on a second screen device. While yes, we are absolutely using them while watching TV- often it’s not in conjunction with watching TV. I don’t believe that in this attention deficit riddled digital world this is going to suddenly change because it’s available.  We live in a society where anything is available at our fingertips. We’re not going to become much more deeply involved with TV, just a little bit. More likely is that we’re just becoming more natural multi-taskers.

Varieties of TV Check-in Apps and multitudes of Social TV initiatives

There are a lot of Apps hitting the market incredibly quick with some heavy hitters backing them.  The usual suspects lately have been some twist of a TV check-in application.  A way to socialize around what programs you are watching and what those of your social graph are getting involved with.

There are  aspects of the idea of TV check-in that I love. I.E. Incentive based advertising potential. There are also many factors that I don’t. It makes very little sense to use a TV check-in App if all of my friends are scattered across a smattering of them. It seems more and more Apps are making their way into the space  with a differing “special Sauce”  So back to my original statements. Choice is good, but not when it comes to something as broad as television behavior.  If I have access to even four major social TV check-in apps, what are the chances that I will check in to all of them? Slim to none. If my friends are the same, my social graph is very spread out, and lets be honest, while I may make some new “TV” friends…I doubt most people will care what the majority of strangers are watching. So the ecosystem is fragmented with little chance for social calls to action to be realized or cared about.

There is also less of  a true call to action to check in to programming. Sometimes it’s a fun thing. Sometimes it’s a hassle, but It’s always far less relevant than other  social forces (and media)  in our lives. (This is coming from someone who talks TV nonstop – so don’t hate me folks)

But it is. Facebook can allow us to show wedding photos. An unbelievable trip we took. That time we met Bill Murray. Our birthday celebration. Etc. Twitter is a valid source for news, widespread opinions, current happenings and trends. TV is usually entertainment. The call to action to tweet on a grand scale with a huge amount of followers  is more enticing than to let a few other people know we are watching Jersey Shore during a 30 minute span of time. That check-in is really only mildly relevant and doesn’t contain a lot of the personal information, opinion and soapbox standing capabilities of other social media endeavors. Even if us in the TV market wish (and often remain hopeful) that it will.  The point I’m making isn’t one of what’s “important” social media. It’s one of breadth of social media and TV in this man’s opinion allows for very little breadth. At the moment at any rate. That isn’t to say that I don’t think the social TV apps won’t have some very large short term popularity.

So- in closing. I can’t wait to see more development in the space. I’m excited. I’m also cautious from the marketing side of things and will warn the rest of you- beware the hype.

Products that need further thought,  direction, research and planning.

 Advertising inventory

A good example of the above is Ad inventory within device User interfaces. I think overall that these developments  are an excellent step forward. I can speak for ages about the changing nature of the OEMs becoming more than just a device provider, but also as the house and home of content. As an initial point of entry into television and the first point of contact most consumers have with the medium there is unlimited advertising potential if executed in a wise fashion. My firm CTV advertising was an incredibly early advocate of this area and spoke out on it quite a bit. It’s been on our radars since the beginning.

There is however, a very standard and uninteresting approach currently being taken and considered by multiple parties in this field.  Ad placements that at the moment are lacking. It’s 2011, simplistic banners on a screen small or large are lackluster. This is especially true when one considers the possibilities one could delve into. I  have a hard time justifying an Ad spend on Connected TV for banner inventory.

I do like Pre-roll video, it takes advantage of the large screen nature of TV and isn’t a banner ad. That said, I believe you get one chance to make a good introduction in this world. In a universe of nearly never ending choices of where to advertise, being able to offer something different, something snazzy and something device specific makes sense.  While there is an overwhelming attitude of “ These are steps in the right direction” I will again state, bring your product to market in a smart way. Not just in “a way”.  In our modern day Ad products are advanced. They should be across the board no matter what step you’re at.

Long form TV companion Apps.

I have a differing article that goes into depth in this area. It’s a vastly popular topic of conversation between advertising folks and content providers alike. The long form version specifically is also in my opinion a bad idea. I think short interactions between tablets/mobile and TV is amazing. There is so much potential here that we’ve been researching I can barely contain myself. Quick syncing behaviors and programs will get an another article from me singing it’s praises.

Long form  immersive experiences on the second screen that correlate throughout the programming in my opinion do not have potential.  These Apps and programs are not well aligned with consumer behavior and how consumer behavior has been changing.  They take into effect that people are certainly utilizing secondary devices while watching TV, but they are multi-tasking, not deeply engaging. They are engaging in a variety of behaviors that are now typical to daily life, and will not be willing to sacrifice those to solely interact with TV programming.  Second screen device synching can be done incredibly well, when and if some very specific consumer behavior patterns are also addressed.

TV Apps.

I’m starting to sound like a broken record with this.  Stop creating poor Apps just to create an App. This is about to become an incredibly fragmented ecosystem.  We live in a world where programmers can design just about anything. This doesn’t mean they should, and this doesn’t mean that you need to have your content distributed across every platform if it isn’t ready to be. I’d rather see a marketing plan to come up with a well aligned puppet show, rather than a poor app.  I have a separate article here on this topic. Please read it.

I could go on and on here. What I will say is this. The marketplace is about to take off, I am deeply excited. It has immense potential, and I’m ready to see it realized. It has to be smart though. Smart and well researched.

In regards to the aforementioned chatter, I wanted to point out some mistakes and faulty perceptions in the understanding of Connected TV consumption patterns and how these relate to the device as well as the advertising within it.

Mistake #1- Treating a Connected TV like a personal device and ignoring the nature of the living room.

There was a lot chatter this week about Apple’s potential TV endeavors. One item that was widely spoken about was the conceptual idea of a “Siri” like program for TV. This program would utilize voice command for television browsing and interaction that is intuitive. To boldly state my opinion, I think this is an excellent example of  rampant over-personalization of a non-personal device.  It’s an example of not abiding by the devices intrinsic nature.  So, I’m going to make an example out of it.

a) Did anybody else grow up with siblings? If not, does anybody have friends who all have differing sports teams they follow? Rebellious children?  A voice control remote will create absolute living room chaos!  Group watching functions because there is a leadership position in control of that remote. Sometimes an authority figure.  A bickering family using voice command will have that TV doing jumping jacks. A large group of friends with no “Remote” authority will create a poor UX across the board.

b) I have thumbs. It’s not difficult to use them. Any ease of use argument is…lazy. I know, I know, a tech geek like myself shouldn’t say this, but it’s true. There is a limit.

More importantly, I prefer personal choice anyhow. Anybody else notice how with Siri you no longer pick the App you are using? That the info is fed from Apple without choosing what sources it comes from? I prefer my freedom of choice to find the best Apps and sites myself, rather than saving my thumbs a workout. That’s me and how I choose to consume. If Apple has a Siri styled control for TV it’s one more barrier to personal choice.

Mistake #2 -   Connected TV advertising and marketing campaigns are different than those of personal devices.

a) This warrants a post in and of itself. First, ads still need to be targeted to both an individual as well as a group. At this point there is no way to tell if there is one person in a room watching television or fifteen. This creates targeting differences from any of the other devices. At any time, any number of individuals can be in the room. You are not just targeting an individual. This is important to keep in mind. It’s still television advertising in other words.

b)  RFI, polling and couponing create an amazing functionality for interactive TV advertisements. They need to be optimized in differing ways however, from other more personal devices.  In a group setting there are calls to action that can work and those that won‘t. There are even some calls to action that can be used to draw groups of watchers into a conversation/interaction together for greater mindshare. Always remember though, the TV is the only connected device that embraces a multi-person audience.

c) I love pre-roll as much as the next. I also love simple display Ads,  but there are some incredibly unique  and novel advertising placements to consider within the device. This platform allows for an amazing amount of creativity in developing new ad spots so  start your engines now. I know we have.

These last three elements should be considered carefully as there are a lot of sales jobs out there that will state otherwise. Be wary.

Author: Zachary Weiner is CEO of  leading  connected TV advertising  and marketing firm  CTV Advertising.   Connect with us on twitter and Facebook

At the CTV Advertising lab we’re looking into them all. We’ll abandon what we find creepy and morally ambiguous, but this doesn’t mean it’s any less interesting to look at and view from a distance. If we didn’t like what scared us a bit, there would be no Frankenstein, Stephen King books, zombie apocalypse movies or rampant over usage of vampire programming. Understanding what shouldn’t be allowed also allows us to continue engaging in the most ethical methods of advertising by eliminating those that are not.

So here are some examples of  both.  We’d like your thoughts…Creepy or not? Comment or tweets appreciated.

 Your TV will know your emotions:

Instant biometric response tracking for Smart TV advertising campaigns and programming is not a tricky feat. Many TV manufacturers have some intriguing facial recognition technology on the horizon to build into your TV. Imagine, that as you sit and watch a commercial or interact with a television app, your TV is also watching you. It’s sending back intensive data based emotional algorithms at how intrigued you are, happy you are, engaged and interested you are,  all based on facial expressions. Advertisers will go above and beyond the world of standard analytics, they can figure out exactly what those Ads made you feel in real time, and custom tailor future Ads to keep intrigue levels at a maximum. Beats CTR huh?

Your TV  (and it’s advertisements) will know your age and sex and that of your family and friends:

Instant Targeting of specific demographics via facial recognition. This is quite similar technology as the above. TV doesn’t have the benefit of certain advanced targeting methods that personal devices do as there is usually more than one individual using the device and those individuals can have any numbers of outside visitors. Your TV will analyze the entire audience for age and sex and proceed to deliver the best targeted ads based on these factors as well as other targeting methods in conjunction.

 Your Second Screen will stalk you:

Yes, second screen integration is just beginning. It goes far beyond solely allowing social check-ins and automatic content recognition for Ad spots. These are child’s play in a world of artificial intelligence. Allowing your tablet/phone to  know what you are watching is basic. We’re looking into ways to allow advertisements and programming you watched on TV to stay with your second screen device and begin intensive interactions when triggered by location cues and behavioral events.

We want that tablet or that phone to store information about what you may have watched or interacted with and interact with related elements in real time. Just watched a travel show about Greece? As you are walking down the street we want that new Greek restaurant to offer you a cooking class  to expand your knowledge.  We want your 2nd screen to have a capable and intuitive memory. Connected TV Marketing+ Second Screen integration= Smarter Apps that bridge both sides wherever you are.

(PS- Reverse this to think about  information about where you have been and where you have been doing outside the home being added as interest items to your TV’s discovery engine. Now think of the Ad potential here)

Studio programming will enter your home (With your permission)
Game shows are fun. So is playing games with others. What is more fun is the direct interaction between these two forces on a broad scale.  There are a variety of ways we have been hypothesizing to add interactivity straight from the studio and directly into peoples homes, and from people’s home to other people’s homes. All we will say here is that if viewers want to, they will be able to go head to head with live studio participants and head to head with other households. You know what comes with this? Incentive Advertising. Branded Prizes. Once we start offering competitive interactive TV programming the novel ad units for Connected TV are nearly never-ending. It’s not creepy until you really start imagining the ability of game shows to reach out and interact with a live home audience.Viewers being able to view other viewers, and the reach of the studio expanded into…anywhere people will allow it. Think about the ability to allow millions of viewers into your home.

Long Story short, if you see kids dressed as a television this year, you may know why. On the other hand, with proper control and  ethical monitoring  there is amazing business utility. And it will at least be 50 more years before the robots take over and enslave us all anyhow.

Happy Halloween.

Author: Zachary Weiner- CEO of  Connected TV advertising  and marketing firm CTV Advertising.

Connect with us on Twitter

This article however, is about knowing what changes brand marketers should expect so that they can adapt. The “outlook reports”  and research studies getting pushed out are plentiful, but there is a lack of strategic philosophy being given to brands. Hopefully this article sets a small precedent for some further topics to think about.

 Change #1: Learning to embrace a change in the terminology and philosophy.

There are a plethora of unique questions one can ask upon embarking on a journey into connected TV marketing. This for instance might include whether advertisers should classify the platform on the broadcast side or as digital? It’s a major question to figure out as it affects marketing approach strategy on numerous levels. The answer is both, which creates novelty as well as  further complications.

We’ve been telling agencies to think of it’s benefits in terms of digital, but many elements (for now) will still have a broadcast basis. To plan accordingly one has to keep in mind that no matter how it’s classified  there is a need for new terminology.  The lingo will be specific to the platform. Lets take an easy example- Ad buys. People aren’t buying connected TV ads on a spot basis, per se, but they also aren’t buying directly on a strict CPM basis. What they will be buying for Connected TV video ad formats needs a new term. (CPM doesn’t work  due to an unknown amount of people. TV is based on a group setting the big screen provides)  We’re advocating the widespread usage of the term TCPM, but this is neither here nor there. The point is that there is a world of new terms this new system will create. LEARN THEM. In the next few months I plan on creating a glossary. Stay tuned.

Aside from a new lingo, there is a HUGE new scope of advertising and marketing philosophies. From long form content creation and branding, to new interactive ad units, App strategy, interactive entertainment methodology, app-vertising, the list goes marching on and on. We’ll continue to keep you as educated as possible, but it’s a vast new landscape  and you won’t be prepared unless you start learning now. It’s time to start investigating and conceptualizing.

Adaptation  Advice: Plan for major changes. Connected TV falls between two worlds and thus creates a brand new one with new phrasing, terminology, philosophy and execution on all things marketing and advertising. Don’t be behind the curve. Educate yourself. (Contact me for information on the Connected TV Marketing Association- which might be a fantastic resource)

Change #2  A change in the players: A rise in faux Connected TV marketing consultants:

There will be some incredibly smart innovators coming out in the field, and with that some amazing new marketers. These rising stars will be vastly influential, but they will also be the minority.

You’ve seen it before, but each time it’s just as difficult to deal with. When a new technology or platform successfully arises so do a whole bunch of marketing chop shops.  Folks that smell money and blood in the water and do what it takes to get their piece of it while providing little benefit. I imagine we will see a vast amount of terrible App developers, sham media strategists, poor content producers and repugnant ad programs make their way to the surface. They’ll  be capitalizing on naive brands by utilizing industry buzzwords and playing off of what valid companies come out with.

Adaptation advice: Really research who you do business with and don’t take anyone at face value or based on a sales job. Ask others throughout the industry if someone is trust-able and has a history. The industry at the moment is  small and a lot of us know each other quite well. We’re the same historically proven faces you’ll see putting out the fires that the faux connected TV marketers create. Be careful who you use and watch for scammers.

Change #3-  There will be major changes in television content. 

There are so many new formats for broad reaching content on Connected TV  that it could make your head spin. The evolution and growth of the platform will exponentially increase potential and possibilities. Content producers and broadcaster need to be cognizant that this will be the case. I could speak  for the next thirty hours straight and not cover half of the possibilities out there, but for the terms and purposes of this article… Start imagining, and start understanding how a shift to interactivity will change television content in numerous ways.

I’ll address #3 in a very near future article where we can talk about content and it’s Connected TV future. So for now, stay tuned!

Author: Zachary Weiner- CEO of  Connected TV advertising  and marketing firm CTV Advertising.

Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook.